Federal judge on Napa wine fight: 'Why should I get involved?'

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — At a hearing on Friday, a federal judge expressed skepticism to be presiding over a legal battle between Napa County and a local vineyard as the parties currently duke it out in state court in California.

“Why should I get involved in something that is presently being litigated in state courts?” asked Senior U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, a Bill Clinton appointee.

The federal lawsuit — brought by Napa-based Hoopes Vineyard — concerns Napa County’s small winery ordinance. That ordinance prevents Hoopes from conducting small tours or wine tastings. The vineyard claims that costs them millions of dollars.

Adding to the quarrel, Napa County has accused Hoopes of hosting tastings and tourts without a permit. Hoopes says they’re grandfathered in.

In November, a judge in the state court case ruled in favor of Napa County, which is seeking nearly $8 million in penalties and fees. Hoopes says paying those penalties would cause the winery to close. That state case remains unresolved.

Ryan McGinley-Stempel, counsel for Napa County, agreed on Friday that Breyer should stay out of it while the state court case plays out.

On behalf of Hoopes Vineyard, lawyer Joe Infante countered that Breyer should not abstain.

The federal case had two additional parties that are not involved in the state case, Infante explained. Those are Summit Lake Vineyards and Cook’s Flat Reserve. The state case is also a nuisance suit, he said, while the federal case involves issues like the commerce clause that are not before the state court.

Breyer seemed unconvinced. Resolution of the state case would also likely impact the issues raised by Summit Lake Vineyards and Cook’s Flat Reserve, he noted.

“Are they identically situated? Of course not. Are they similarly situated? It looks like they are," Breyer said. “And so, that’s my question: Why do I get involved?”

Infante replied that Summit Lake Vineyards and Cook’s Flat Reserve tried to intervene in the state case but were denied because they weren’t similarly situated.

“There seems to be some meaningful overlap of issues,” Breyer said, adding he would look at the case again. He has requested supplemental material from both parties by next week.